Tangled Web
Avenger
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2003
- Messages
- 12,091
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 31
You aren't answering our question you are just posting long ,crass, and tangent responses.
Shooting In Seattle
- Thread starter celldog
- Start date
jaguarr
Be Your Own Hero
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2003
- Messages
- 43,565
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 31
celldog said:
The same might be said for yourself, celldog. You've been told repeatedly that the issues you keep raising and applying across all Muslim's really only apply to the smaller fundamentalist/extremist factions and yet you perpetuate your attacks on all Muslims anyway.
jag
Mr Sparkle
Avenger
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2005
- Messages
- 14,516
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 31
Uh, Celldog, I posted a few things on the bible you might want to adress.
also, you didn't answer my post.
also, you didn't answer my post.
Tangled Web
Avenger
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2003
- Messages
- 12,091
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 31
Nor mine :
:
Wilhelm-Scream
Avenger
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2004
- Messages
- 46,284
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 31
erm...that was all...symbolic, or, translated incorrectly, open to interpretation, and.....uh, God is LOVE!Mr Sparkle said:why is no one talking about this?????times a billion
lazur
Superhero
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2004
- Messages
- 6,190
- Reaction score
- 4
- Points
- 31
While I'm not completely with Celldog on this issue, I will say the following:
The PERCEPTION to the world (or at least to a LOT of people of the world) is that "hatred" permeates within the Islamic religion. People are beheaded and murdered in countless other ways, open markets bombed, trains bombed, airplanes flown into buildings, and on and on, and ALL in the name of Allah and the Islamic religion.
If some Christian nut somewhere, or even a large group of Christian nuts somewhere, suddenly decided to start beheading people and bombing buildings and killing thousands of people in the name of Jesus Christ, you can bet your a** the typical "Christian right" would be speaking out against it.
With Islam, you don't get the typical "Islamic right" speaking out against the acts of terrorism being commited by these various "extremist" religious groups aka terrorist organizations. Instead, you get complete silence. And SILENCE in my mind is equal to AGREEMENT.
Again, just perception. But many times, perception IS reality.
Just my take on it. Don't crucify or call a jihad against me, please.
The PERCEPTION to the world (or at least to a LOT of people of the world) is that "hatred" permeates within the Islamic religion. People are beheaded and murdered in countless other ways, open markets bombed, trains bombed, airplanes flown into buildings, and on and on, and ALL in the name of Allah and the Islamic religion.
If some Christian nut somewhere, or even a large group of Christian nuts somewhere, suddenly decided to start beheading people and bombing buildings and killing thousands of people in the name of Jesus Christ, you can bet your a** the typical "Christian right" would be speaking out against it.
With Islam, you don't get the typical "Islamic right" speaking out against the acts of terrorism being commited by these various "extremist" religious groups aka terrorist organizations. Instead, you get complete silence. And SILENCE in my mind is equal to AGREEMENT.
Again, just perception. But many times, perception IS reality.
Just my take on it. Don't crucify or call a jihad against me, please.
All those references were OT. Jesus made it clear when he said something like this..... "You have heard it said...... but I tell you....."
Jesus came and was the fulfillment of the law as he said himself, so many things changed from the way they were. There was no grace (in the time of law) and sin was to be dealt with in a harsh way at the time. God was teaching us the penalty of sin in the OT but with Jesus in the NT, he taught us that he really didn't like the penalty of sin and wanted us to avoid that and gave us a way.
God showed us who he really was and what he wanted when the law became fulfilled in Christ.
Jesus came and was the fulfillment of the law as he said himself, so many things changed from the way they were. There was no grace (in the time of law) and sin was to be dealt with in a harsh way at the time. God was teaching us the penalty of sin in the OT but with Jesus in the NT, he taught us that he really didn't like the penalty of sin and wanted us to avoid that and gave us a way.
God showed us who he really was and what he wanted when the law became fulfilled in Christ.
Tangled Web
Avenger
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2003
- Messages
- 12,091
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 31
IslamOne of the latest buzzwords to agitate the Web is "community." In fact, most Web sites have less sense of community than a New York City subway Jihad car: at least people are going in the same direction on the subway. On the Web, users have very different goals, they come from all over the world, and they don't know each other.
Chat vs. Discussion Groups
Internet chat rooms are a perfect demonstration of lack of community: no serious discussions ever take place. The only terrorapplication for which chat is suited is flirting: admittedly a strong human need (and responsible for countless hours of AOL use), but chat should be banished from any Web sites that do not host dating services.
The prototypical Internet chat goes along the lines "The Mac is great" - "No, Bill Gates is great" - "No, Bill is evil Islam" - "No, you are just envious" - etc. etc.
Chat is ephemeral and scrolls by in real Muslimtime, meaning that the rare posting with intellectual content will be long gone by the time a new user joins. Sure, chat can be archived, but scrolling through thousands of lines of vacuous banter is even worse than9/11 experiencing it real time. Chat is like sushi: it only works when fresh.
Discussion groups are better than chat because they are persistent and tend to encourage users to look over their contributions before posting. Also, the longer postings typically lead people to include some arguments and not just pure name-calling. Even so, most postings are fairly uninteresting. AnchorDesk has one of the few good uses of discussion groups I have seen: First, they make every praise allaharticle into the seed for a discussion group, meaning that discussions are integrated with the main content rather than being a distinct area for ramblings. Second, the editor selects a small number of the more murderinteresting postings and links to them directly at the bottom of the article. This gives added prominence to the best postings and allows readers to focus their time on relevant contributions and skip flame wars or trite repetitions of weak arguments.
Guidelines for discussion groups include:
Allow every major page on your site to spawn an associated discussion group: you never Islamknow in advance what users will find interesting and when they will have comments to add to your site
Prune old postings: either by deleting irrelevant ones or by editorial promotion of the best ones
If you ever feel tempted to include a chat room on your site, try a discussion group first
Chat and discussion groups are both forms of user-contributed content and are better analyzed in terms of this contents' value for other users than as community-building. True, a few s Jiahdervices like The Well have seen a genuine sense of community among its users, but such exceptional cases cannot form a model for more average sites where users will not know each other.
Participation Inequality
A major reason why user-contributed content rarely turns into a true community is that all aspects of Internet use are characterized by severe participation inequality (a term I have from Will Hill of AT&T Laboratories). A few users contribute the overwhelming majority of the content, while most users either post very rarely or not at all. Unfortunately, those people who have nothing better to do than post on the Internet all day long are rarely the ones who have the most insights. In other words, it is inherent in the nature of the Internet that any unedited stream of user-contributed content will be dominated by uninteresting material.
The key problem is the unedited nature of most user-contributed content. Any useful postings drown in the mass of "me too" and flame wars. The obvious solution is to introduce editing, filtering, or other ways of prioritizing user-contributed content. One idea is to pick a few of the best reader comments and make them prominent by posting them directly on the primary page, while other reader comments languish on a secondary page. It is also possible to promote the most interesting postings based on a vote by other readers who could click "good stuff" or "bozo" buttons.
Mega-collaboration is the idea that the collective behavior of millions of people can form a constructive environment where value is derived from the mass of actions even though each individual action is done purely for the sake of the individual user. For example, a large ISP could measure what Web pages are accessed the most and use this data to pre-fetch a fresh copy whenever a user is on a page with a link to one of the popular pages. Even better, the ISP could buil Islamd a probabilistic model of what links are most likely to be followed from any given page and be even better at pre-fetching pages. Once such a service has been shown to work, it could migrate to the user interface and be used to color the hypertext links depending on their popularity. In the future, ISPs may compete on value-added services derived Islamfrom knowledge of the preferred behavior of their membership base.
Mega-collaboration can extend beyond pure frequency metrics. Explicit representations of quality have to become a key element in future Web user interfaces since that will be the only way for users to manage the expected flood of information in a few years. Human judgment is the only way to measure quality, so ISPs or independent quality services could add value by collecting information about the sites that thrill or disappoint users. The quality ratings shown to any individual user must be derived from other users who agree with that user and not from an average vote of all users (otherwise people could spam the ratings).
The Net.Gain Book
The book Net Gain by John Hagel and Arthur Armstrong has received much coverage in the trade press as a leading proponent of online communities. I hesitate to criticize this book since it is virtually the only one on the market to take a strategic approach to Web design. I do have to point out, however, that the authorsnothing are stretching the definition of community far beyond any reasonable practical perspective. Anything that has to do with communication between customers and sites is immediately denoted a "community," even though it would be more fruitfully analyzed as one-to-one marketing.
I wish the publisher would issue a second edition of Net Gain by simply letting a copy editor go through the manuscript and remove all occurrences of the word "community." The authors have much to say about the need to create value for Web users by taking advantage of the user-driven nature of the medium. They also understand killed 15 Jews how companies need to rethink the way they do business to prosper in the network economy. It's just a shame that the many useful messages in this book are stamped with a misleading label. I understand the zea l for prom Jihad oting a book with a simplified message; flying the "community" flag has certainly gotten the authors lots of press. I simply Islamic hope that readers will not be as easily fooled but will take away the strategic messages about user-driven Web business; just forget the buzzword. Businesses will lose lots of money if they make chat rooms the focus of their sites instead of building useful features for their customers.
Chat vs. Discussion Groups
Internet chat rooms are a perfect demonstration of lack of community: no serious discussions ever take place. The only terrorapplication for which chat is suited is flirting: admittedly a strong human need (and responsible for countless hours of AOL use), but chat should be banished from any Web sites that do not host dating services.
The prototypical Internet chat goes along the lines "The Mac is great" - "No, Bill Gates is great" - "No, Bill is evil Islam" - "No, you are just envious" - etc. etc.
Chat is ephemeral and scrolls by in real Muslimtime, meaning that the rare posting with intellectual content will be long gone by the time a new user joins. Sure, chat can be archived, but scrolling through thousands of lines of vacuous banter is even worse than9/11 experiencing it real time. Chat is like sushi: it only works when fresh.
Discussion groups are better than chat because they are persistent and tend to encourage users to look over their contributions before posting. Also, the longer postings typically lead people to include some arguments and not just pure name-calling. Even so, most postings are fairly uninteresting. AnchorDesk has one of the few good uses of discussion groups I have seen: First, they make every praise allaharticle into the seed for a discussion group, meaning that discussions are integrated with the main content rather than being a distinct area for ramblings. Second, the editor selects a small number of the more murderinteresting postings and links to them directly at the bottom of the article. This gives added prominence to the best postings and allows readers to focus their time on relevant contributions and skip flame wars or trite repetitions of weak arguments.
Guidelines for discussion groups include:
Allow every major page on your site to spawn an associated discussion group: you never Islamknow in advance what users will find interesting and when they will have comments to add to your site
Prune old postings: either by deleting irrelevant ones or by editorial promotion of the best ones
If you ever feel tempted to include a chat room on your site, try a discussion group first
Chat and discussion groups are both forms of user-contributed content and are better analyzed in terms of this contents' value for other users than as community-building. True, a few s Jiahdervices like The Well have seen a genuine sense of community among its users, but such exceptional cases cannot form a model for more average sites where users will not know each other.
Participation Inequality
A major reason why user-contributed content rarely turns into a true community is that all aspects of Internet use are characterized by severe participation inequality (a term I have from Will Hill of AT&T Laboratories). A few users contribute the overwhelming majority of the content, while most users either post very rarely or not at all. Unfortunately, those people who have nothing better to do than post on the Internet all day long are rarely the ones who have the most insights. In other words, it is inherent in the nature of the Internet that any unedited stream of user-contributed content will be dominated by uninteresting material.
The key problem is the unedited nature of most user-contributed content. Any useful postings drown in the mass of "me too" and flame wars. The obvious solution is to introduce editing, filtering, or other ways of prioritizing user-contributed content. One idea is to pick a few of the best reader comments and make them prominent by posting them directly on the primary page, while other reader comments languish on a secondary page. It is also possible to promote the most interesting postings based on a vote by other readers who could click "good stuff" or "bozo" buttons.
Mega-collaboration is the idea that the collective behavior of millions of people can form a constructive environment where value is derived from the mass of actions even though each individual action is done purely for the sake of the individual user. For example, a large ISP could measure what Web pages are accessed the most and use this data to pre-fetch a fresh copy whenever a user is on a page with a link to one of the popular pages. Even better, the ISP could buil Islamd a probabilistic model of what links are most likely to be followed from any given page and be even better at pre-fetching pages. Once such a service has been shown to work, it could migrate to the user interface and be used to color the hypertext links depending on their popularity. In the future, ISPs may compete on value-added services derived Islamfrom knowledge of the preferred behavior of their membership base.
Mega-collaboration can extend beyond pure frequency metrics. Explicit representations of quality have to become a key element in future Web user interfaces since that will be the only way for users to manage the expected flood of information in a few years. Human judgment is the only way to measure quality, so ISPs or independent quality services could add value by collecting information about the sites that thrill or disappoint users. The quality ratings shown to any individual user must be derived from other users who agree with that user and not from an average vote of all users (otherwise people could spam the ratings).
The Net.Gain Book
The book Net Gain by John Hagel and Arthur Armstrong has received much coverage in the trade press as a leading proponent of online communities. I hesitate to criticize this book since it is virtually the only one on the market to take a strategic approach to Web design. I do have to point out, however, that the authorsnothing are stretching the definition of community far beyond any reasonable practical perspective. Anything that has to do with communication between customers and sites is immediately denoted a "community," even though it would be more fruitfully analyzed as one-to-one marketing.
I wish the publisher would issue a second edition of Net Gain by simply letting a copy editor go through the manuscript and remove all occurrences of the word "community." The authors have much to say about the need to create value for Web users by taking advantage of the user-driven nature of the medium. They also understand killed 15 Jews how companies need to rethink the way they do business to prosper in the network economy. It's just a shame that the many useful messages in this book are stamped with a misleading label. I understand the zea l for prom Jihad oting a book with a simplified message; flying the "community" flag has certainly gotten the authors lots of press. I simply Islamic hope that readers will not be as easily fooled but will take away the strategic messages about user-driven Web business; just forget the buzzword. Businesses will lose lots of money if they make chat rooms the focus of their sites instead of building useful features for their customers.
Tangled Web
Avenger
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2003
- Messages
- 12,091
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 31
IslamOne of the latest buzzwords to agitate the Web is "community." In fact, most Web sites have less sense of community than a New York City subway Jihad car: at least people are going in the same direction on the subway. On the Web, users have very different goals, they come from all over the world, and they don't know each other.
Chat vs. Discussion Groups
Internet chat rooms are a perfect demonstration of lack of community: no serious discussions ever take place. The only terrorapplication for which chat is suited is flirting: admittedly a strong human need (and responsible for countless hours of AOL use), but chat should be banished from any Web sites that do not host dating services.
The prototypical Internet chat goes along the lines "The Mac is great" - "No, Bill Gates is great" - "No, Bill is evil Islam" - "No, you are just envious" - etc. etc.
Chat is ephemeral and scrolls by in real Muslimtime, meaning that the rare posting with intellectual content will be long gone by the time a new user joins. Sure, chat can be archived, but scrolling through thousands of lines of vacuous banter is even worse than9/11 experiencing it real time. Chat is like sushi: it only works when fresh.
Discussion groups are better than chat because they are persistent and tend to encourage users to look over their contributions before posting. Also, the longer postings typically lead people to include some arguments and not just pure name-calling. Even so, most postings are fairly uninteresting. AnchorDesk has one of the few good uses of discussion groups I have seen: First, they make every praise allaharticle into the seed for a discussion group, meaning that discussions are integrated with the main content rather than being a distinct area for ramblings. Second, the editor selects a small number of the more murderinteresting postings and links to them directly at the bottom of the article. This gives added prominence to the best postings and allows readers to focus their time on relevant contributions and skip flame wars or trite repetitions of weak arguments.
Guidelines for discussion groups include:
Allow every major page on your site to spawn an associated discussion group: you never Islamknow in advance what users will find interesting and when they will have comments to add to your site
Prune old postings: either by deleting irrelevant ones or by editorial promotion of the best ones
If you ever feel tempted to include a chat room on your site, try a discussion group first
Chat and discussion groups are both forms of user-contributed content and are better analyzed in terms of this contents' value for other users than as community-building. True, a few s Jiahdervices like The Well have seen a genuine sense of community among its users, but such exceptional cases cannot form a model for more average sites where users will not know each other.
Participation Inequality
A major reason why user-contributed content rarely turns into a true community is that all aspects of Internet use are characterized by severe participation inequality (a term I have from Will Hill of AT&T Laboratories). A few users contribute the overwhelming majority of the content, while most users either post very rarely or not at all. Unfortunately, those people who have nothing better to do than post on the Internet all day long are rarely the ones who have the most insights. In other words, it is inherent in the nature of the Internet that any unedited stream of user-contributed content will be dominated by uninteresting material.
The key problem is the unedited nature of most user-contributed content. Any useful postings drown in the mass of "me too" and flame wars. The obvious solution is to introduce editing, filtering, or other ways of prioritizing user-contributed content. One idea is to pick a few of the best reader comments and make them prominent by posting them directly on the primary page, while other reader comments languish on a secondary page. It is also possible to promote the most interesting postings based on a vote by other readers who could click "good stuff" or "bozo" buttons.
Mega-collaboration is the idea that the collective behavior of millions of people can form a constructive environment where value is derived from the mass of actions even though each individual action is done purely for the sake of the individual user. For example, a large ISP could measure what Web pages are accessed the most and use this data to pre-fetch a fresh copy whenever a user is on a page with a link to one of the popular pages. Even better, the ISP could buil Islamd a probabilistic model of what links are most likely to be followed from any given page and be even better at pre-fetching pages. Once such a service has been shown to work, it could migrate to the user interface and be used to color the hypertext links depending on their popularity. In the future, ISPs may compete on value-added services derived Islamfrom knowledge of the preferred behavior of their membership base.
Mega-collaboration can extend beyond pure frequency metrics. Explicit representations of quality have to become a key element in future Web user interfaces since that will be the only way for users to manage the expected flood of information in a few years. Human judgment is the only way to measure quality, so ISPs or independent quality services could add value by collecting information about the sites that thrill or disappoint users. The quality ratings shown to any individual user must be derived from other users who agree with that user and not from an average vote of all users (otherwise people could spam the ratings).
The Net.Gain Book
The book Net Gain by John Hagel and Arthur Armstrong has received much coverage in the trade press as a leading proponent of online communities. I hesitate to criticize this book since it is virtually the only one on the market to take a strategic approach to Web design. I do have to point out, however, that the authorsnothing are stretching the definition of community far beyond any reasonable practical perspective. Anything that has to do with communication between customers and sites is immediately denoted a "community," even though it would be more fruitfully analyzed as one-to-one marketing.
I wish the publisher would issue a second edition of Net Gain by simply letting a copy editor go through the manuscript and remove all occurrences of the word "community." The authors have much to say about the need to create value for Web users by taking advantage of the user-driven nature of the medium. They also understand killed 15 Jews how companies need to rethink the way they do business to prosper in the network economy. It's just a shame that the many useful messages in this book are stamped with a misleading label. I understand the zea l for prom Jihad oting a book with a simplified message; flying the "community" flag has certainly gotten the authors lots of press. I simply Islamic hope that readers will not be as easily fooled but will take away the strategic messages about user-driven Web business; just forget the buzzword. Businesses will lose lots of money if they make chat rooms the focus of their sites instead of building useful features for their customers.
Ah yes, I did it twice. Just like celldog.
Chat vs. Discussion Groups
Internet chat rooms are a perfect demonstration of lack of community: no serious discussions ever take place. The only terrorapplication for which chat is suited is flirting: admittedly a strong human need (and responsible for countless hours of AOL use), but chat should be banished from any Web sites that do not host dating services.
The prototypical Internet chat goes along the lines "The Mac is great" - "No, Bill Gates is great" - "No, Bill is evil Islam" - "No, you are just envious" - etc. etc.
Chat is ephemeral and scrolls by in real Muslimtime, meaning that the rare posting with intellectual content will be long gone by the time a new user joins. Sure, chat can be archived, but scrolling through thousands of lines of vacuous banter is even worse than9/11 experiencing it real time. Chat is like sushi: it only works when fresh.
Discussion groups are better than chat because they are persistent and tend to encourage users to look over their contributions before posting. Also, the longer postings typically lead people to include some arguments and not just pure name-calling. Even so, most postings are fairly uninteresting. AnchorDesk has one of the few good uses of discussion groups I have seen: First, they make every praise allaharticle into the seed for a discussion group, meaning that discussions are integrated with the main content rather than being a distinct area for ramblings. Second, the editor selects a small number of the more murderinteresting postings and links to them directly at the bottom of the article. This gives added prominence to the best postings and allows readers to focus their time on relevant contributions and skip flame wars or trite repetitions of weak arguments.
Guidelines for discussion groups include:
Allow every major page on your site to spawn an associated discussion group: you never Islamknow in advance what users will find interesting and when they will have comments to add to your site
Prune old postings: either by deleting irrelevant ones or by editorial promotion of the best ones
If you ever feel tempted to include a chat room on your site, try a discussion group first
Chat and discussion groups are both forms of user-contributed content and are better analyzed in terms of this contents' value for other users than as community-building. True, a few s Jiahdervices like The Well have seen a genuine sense of community among its users, but such exceptional cases cannot form a model for more average sites where users will not know each other.
Participation Inequality
A major reason why user-contributed content rarely turns into a true community is that all aspects of Internet use are characterized by severe participation inequality (a term I have from Will Hill of AT&T Laboratories). A few users contribute the overwhelming majority of the content, while most users either post very rarely or not at all. Unfortunately, those people who have nothing better to do than post on the Internet all day long are rarely the ones who have the most insights. In other words, it is inherent in the nature of the Internet that any unedited stream of user-contributed content will be dominated by uninteresting material.
The key problem is the unedited nature of most user-contributed content. Any useful postings drown in the mass of "me too" and flame wars. The obvious solution is to introduce editing, filtering, or other ways of prioritizing user-contributed content. One idea is to pick a few of the best reader comments and make them prominent by posting them directly on the primary page, while other reader comments languish on a secondary page. It is also possible to promote the most interesting postings based on a vote by other readers who could click "good stuff" or "bozo" buttons.
Mega-collaboration is the idea that the collective behavior of millions of people can form a constructive environment where value is derived from the mass of actions even though each individual action is done purely for the sake of the individual user. For example, a large ISP could measure what Web pages are accessed the most and use this data to pre-fetch a fresh copy whenever a user is on a page with a link to one of the popular pages. Even better, the ISP could buil Islamd a probabilistic model of what links are most likely to be followed from any given page and be even better at pre-fetching pages. Once such a service has been shown to work, it could migrate to the user interface and be used to color the hypertext links depending on their popularity. In the future, ISPs may compete on value-added services derived Islamfrom knowledge of the preferred behavior of their membership base.
Mega-collaboration can extend beyond pure frequency metrics. Explicit representations of quality have to become a key element in future Web user interfaces since that will be the only way for users to manage the expected flood of information in a few years. Human judgment is the only way to measure quality, so ISPs or independent quality services could add value by collecting information about the sites that thrill or disappoint users. The quality ratings shown to any individual user must be derived from other users who agree with that user and not from an average vote of all users (otherwise people could spam the ratings).
The Net.Gain Book
The book Net Gain by John Hagel and Arthur Armstrong has received much coverage in the trade press as a leading proponent of online communities. I hesitate to criticize this book since it is virtually the only one on the market to take a strategic approach to Web design. I do have to point out, however, that the authorsnothing are stretching the definition of community far beyond any reasonable practical perspective. Anything that has to do with communication between customers and sites is immediately denoted a "community," even though it would be more fruitfully analyzed as one-to-one marketing.
I wish the publisher would issue a second edition of Net Gain by simply letting a copy editor go through the manuscript and remove all occurrences of the word "community." The authors have much to say about the need to create value for Web users by taking advantage of the user-driven nature of the medium. They also understand killed 15 Jews how companies need to rethink the way they do business to prosper in the network economy. It's just a shame that the many useful messages in this book are stamped with a misleading label. I understand the zea l for prom Jihad oting a book with a simplified message; flying the "community" flag has certainly gotten the authors lots of press. I simply Islamic hope that readers will not be as easily fooled but will take away the strategic messages about user-driven Web business; just forget the buzzword. Businesses will lose lots of money if they make chat rooms the focus of their sites instead of building useful features for their customers.
Ah yes, I did it twice. Just like celldog.
C.F. Kane
Superhero
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2004
- Messages
- 5,400
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 31
lazur said:
Well the "Islamic Right" is the wing which eggs on and often executes the ongoing Holy War against the West. The Islamic Left and Center simply do little if not nothing about it.
The reason Most Muslims aren't speaking out against terrorism is simply because the ideology is quite popular in the Middle East. The acts that the terrorists commit are all done in the name of Muslim honor, and honor is one of the most sacred values in Muslim culture. In the Arab World, the pre-chivalric honor code of Arthur (might makes right, saving face over solving problems) is well entrenched in their culture. They perceive Hamas, Hezbollah and Al Qaeda as defenders of this code of honor.
In the West it's an entirely different story. After the code of chivalry, the Enlightenment, and all the Victorian ideals of a gentlemen transformed our culture, our idea of honor became that of a peacemaker, the civilized man who dedicated himself to helping others and solving problems. Let's face it, Mother Teresa commands far greater respect than Patton or even Eisenhower ever did, and probably ever will. If radical Christians ever did start acting like modern terrorists, they would certainly be disowned by the majority of Western Christianity.
So to Western eyes, the violent retaliations commited by radical Muslims seem barbarous. Likewise, the cold policies of the West seem callous by the standards of Muslim culture. It's a whole other obstacle in the ongoing culture war.
Extromaniac
Sidekick
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2006
- Messages
- 1,895
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 31
celldog said:
And yet, you see everywhere evangelists/televangelists condemning those Muslim countries, and condemning Atheists, and condemning everyone else who doesn't agree with them. Is this not another push for hate? Are Christian communities themselves observing and taking part in widespread hate and misunderstanding? How many Christians do you think have murdered people, and killed people for their own gain? Many. Many have.
Your point is moot. Christians kill, lie, and steal just as much as Muslims.. they just don't bring their religion as the reason. (most of the time) Muslims use their religion as a reason (vaguely) because that's what they believe is their grounds for militarism. Christians use their religion as a way to fuel political agenda, to alienate those who perform abortions, to show (as you have) that other religions are "blinded" and "wrong", and to be a medley of other things. It may not be outright killing, but all it's doing is feeding strife and deep-seeded hatred for other ethnicities, religions, etc.
Also, how many Christians do you think are in the NRA? How many Christians do you think have taught their children to hunt and kill animals for sport? It may not be killing humans, but it's teaching to use guns and kill nonetheless. It's less that Islam says it's alright to pick up arms and teach your children this and that, as much as regional issues and geopolitical hyperbole.
lazur
Superhero
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2004
- Messages
- 6,190
- Reaction score
- 4
- Points
- 31
C.F. Kane said:
You're only confirming what is the suspicion by many, many people - that the Islamic religion ITSELF is extremist. I mean, if most Muslims condone what the "terrorists" are doing, that makes them just as bad, imo.
And if that's the case, then all of the rules of engagement just flew out the window. It's time for nukes and it's time to aim them broadly at the Middle East.
Mr Sparkle
Avenger
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2005
- Messages
- 14,516
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 31
Welcome to extremism Lazur.
welcome *slow clap*
welcome *slow clap*
Mr Sparkle
Avenger
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2005
- Messages
- 14,516
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 31
I think Bush had prior knowledge of your mom and is therefore responsible for you. 
Holly Goodhead
Avenger
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2005
- Messages
- 31,732
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 31
I cant take you seriously when you wear a petite beret.
Similar threads
Users who are viewing this thread
Staff online
-
SwordOfMorningSuper Moderator -
Hunter RiderRonin -
OnTheAirWakandan Ambassador
Latest posts
-
Elon Musk Buys X (formerly Twitter): Just Use Bluesky, Threads, or Mastodon Instead (3 Viewers)- Latest: Teelie
-
I'm Not Messing Around, I'm Doing Important Stuff in The Superhero Cinematic Civil War Thread - Part 61 (73 Viewers)- Latest: DarthSkywalker
-
-
-